http://www.e-journals.in Chemical Science Transactions DOI:10.7598/cst2014.830 2014, 3(2), 566-575 RESEARCH ARTICLE Development and Validation of Stability-Indicating Liquid Chromatographic Assay for Rifaximin (An Antibiotic) in Bulk and Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms M. MATHRUSRI ANNAPURNA *, B. SAI PAVAN KUMAR, B. VENKATESH and J. RAJ PRAKASH Department of Pharmaceutical Analysis & Quality Assurance, GITAM, Institute of Pharmacy, GITAM University, Visakhapatnam, India mathrusri2000@yahoo.com Received 31 January 2014 / Accepted 19 February 2014 Abstract: An isocratic reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatographic method was developed and validated for the determination of Rifaximin. Chromatographic separation was achieved on a C 18 column using an aqueous tetra butyl ammonium hydrogen sulphate (10 mm) (ph 3.37): acetonitrile (40:60, v/v), with flow rate 1.2 ml/min (UV detection at 441 nm). Linearity was observed in the concentration range of 0.1 200 μg/ml (R 2 = 0.9999). The limit of quantitation was found to be 794 μg/ml and the limit of detection was found to be 241 μg/ml. Rifaximin was subjected to stress conditions of degradation in aqueous solutions including acidic, alkaline, oxidation, photolysis and thermal degradation. The forced degradation studies were performed by using HCl, NaOH, H 2 O 2, thermal and UV radiation. Rifaximin is more sensitive towards acidic conditions in comparison to oxidation and very much resistant towards alkaline, thermal and photolytic degradations. The method was validated as per ICH guidelines. The method is simple, specific, precise, robust and accurate for the determination of Rifaximin in pharmaceutical formulations. Keywords: RP-HPLC, Rifaximin, Stability-indicating, Validation, ICH Introduction Rifaximin 1 (RFX) is benzimdazole derivative and chemically it is a 2S,16Z,18E, 20S,21S,22R,23R,24R,25S,26S,27S, 5, 6, 21, 23, 25- penta hydroxy-27-methoxy-2,4,11, 16, 20,22,24,26,- octa methyl-2,. 7-epoxy penta deca-[1,11,13]trienimino) benzofuro[4,5-e] pyrido[1,2-a]-benzimidazole-1, 15 (2H)- dione,25acetate. It is a structural analog of Rifampin. Rifaximin (Figure 1) is a newer antibiotic, used for the treatment of patients (more than 12 years of age) with traveller s diarrhoea caused by non-invasive strains of Escherichia coli 2.
567 Chem Sci Trans., 2014, 3(2), 566-575 Figure 1. Chemical structure of Rifaximin RFX is a product of synthesis of Rifamycin, an antibiotic with low gastrointestinal absorption and good antibacterial activity 3. Rifaximin binds to the beta-subunit of bacterial DNA-dependent RNA polymerase and prevents catalysis of polymerization of deoxyribonucleotides into a DNA strand. As a result, bacterial RNA synthesis is inhibited. In vitro studies of RFX have demonstrated broad-spectrum coverage including Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and anaerobic bacteria as well as a limited risk of bacterial resistance 4. Furthermore, RFX does not bind to RNA polymerase in eukaryotic cells, thus human cell production is not affected. Compared with other antibiotics, RFX has a lower rate of fecal pathogenic eradication, so depletion of normal gastrointestinal flora is reduced 5. Methods reported for the determination of RFX in pharmaceutical dosage forms and biological fluids include RP-HPLC 6-9, LC-MS 10-13 and spectrophotometric 14-15 methods have been developed for the determination of RFX in pharmaceutical formulations and biological fluids. Impurity profiles of Rifaximin were also studied by using Diagnostic fragment-ion-based extension strategy (DFIBES) and derivative resolution of UV spectra 16-17. In the present work we developed simple, rapid, precise and accurate robust liquid chromatographic method for the determination of RFX tablets. Previous reported methods have from one or other disadvantages and therefore the authors have developed a novel stability indicating liquid chromatographic method which was validated as per ICH guidelines 18. Experimental Rifaximin standard (purity 99.0%) was obtained from Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, India). Acetonitrile (HPLC grade), sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and hydrochloric acid (HCl) and Hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ) were obtained from Merck (India). Rifaximin is available (Label claim: 200 mg) with brand names RCIFAX (Lupin) and TORFIX (Torrent). All chemicals were of analytical grade and used as received. Preparation of buffer solution The mobile phase was prepared by accurately weighing and transferring 3.3954 g of tetra butyl ammonium hydrogen sulphate (TBAHS) (10 mm) (ph 3.37) in to a 1000 ml volumetric flask, dissolving and diluting to volume with HPLC grade water. Preparation of rifaximin stock solution Rifaximin stock solution (1000 μg/ml) was prepared by accurately weighing 25 mg of RFX in a 25 ml volumetric flask with mobile phase. Working standard solutions were prepared on a daily basis from the stock solution in a solvent mixture of TBAHS (ph 3.37) and acetonitrile (40:60, v/v). Solutions were filtered through a 0.45 μm membrane filter prior to injection. Instrumentation and chromatographic conditions Chromatographic separation was achieved by using a Shimadzu Model CBM-20A/20 Alite HPLC system, equipped with SPD M20A prominence photodiode array detector with C18 (250mm 4.6mm i.d., 5 µm particle size) column maintained at 25 ºC. Isocratic elution was
Chem Sci Trans., 2014, 3(2), 566-575 568 performed using tetra butyl ammonium hydrogen sulphate (TBAHS) (ph 3.37) and acetonitrile (40:60, v/v). The overall run time was 10 min and the flow rate was 1.2 ml/min. 20 µl of sample was injected into the HPLC system. Forced degradation studies The study was intended to ensure the effective separation of RFX and its degradation peaks of formulation ingredients at the retention time of RFX. Separate portions of drug product and ingredients were exposed to the following stress conditions to induce degradation. Forced degradation studies were performed to evaluate the stability indicating properties and specificity of the method 19. All solutions for use in stress studies were prepared at an initial concentration of 1 mg/ml of RFX and refluxed for 30 min at 80 ºC. All samples were then diluted in mobile phase to give a final concentration of 10 μg/ml and filtered before injection. Acidic and alkaline degradation studies Acid decomposition was carried out in 0.1 M HCl at a concentration of 1.0 mg/ml RFX and after refluxation for 30 min at 80 ºC the stressed sample was cooled, neutralized and diluted with mobile phase. Similarly stress studies in alkaline conditions were conducted using a concentration of 1.0 mg /ml in 0.1 M NaOH and refluxed for 30 min at 80 ºC. After cooling the solution was neutralized and diluted with mobile phase. Oxidation degradation studies Solutions for oxidative stress studies were prepared using 3% H 2 O 2 at a concentration of 1 mg/ml of RFX and after refluxation for 30 min at 80 ºC on the thermostat the sample solution was cooled and diluted accordingly with the mobile phase. Thermal degradation studies For thermal stress testing, the drug solution (1 mg/ ml) was heated in thermostat at 80 ºC for 30 min, cooled and used. Photolytic degradation studies The drug solution (1 mg/ ml) for photo stability testing was exposed to UV light for 4 h UV light (365 nm) chamber and analyzed. Method Validation The method was validated for the following parameters: system suitability, linearity, limit of quantitation (LOQ), limit of detection (LOD), precision, accuracy, selectivity and robustness. Linearity Linearity test solutions for the assay method were prepared from a stock solution at different concentration levels (0.1-200 μg/ml) of the assay analyte concentration and 20 µl of each solution was injected in to the HPLC system and the peak area of the chromatogram obtained was noted. The calibration curve was plotted by taking the concentration on the x-axis and the corresponding peak area on the y-axis. The data was treated with linear regression analysis method. Precision The intra-day precision of the assay method was evaluated by carrying out 9 independent assays of a test sample of RFX at three concentration levels (10, 20 and 50 µg/ml) (n=3) against a qualified reference standard. The % RSD of three obtained assay values at three
569 Chem Sci Trans., 2014, 3(2), 566-575 different concentration levels was calculated. The inter-day precision study was performed on three different days i.e. day 1, day 2 and day 3 at three different concentration levels (10, 20 and 50 μg/ml) and each value is the average of three determinations (n=3). The % RSD of three obtained assay values on three different days was calculated. Accuracy The accuracy of the assay method was evaluated in triplicate at three concentration levels (80, 100 and 120%) and the percentage recoveries were calculated. Standard addition and recovery experiments were conducted to determine the accuracy of the method for the quantification of RFX in the drug product. The study was carried out in triplicate at 18, 20 and 22 µg/ml. The percentage recovery in each case was calculated. Robustness The robustness of the assay method was established by introducing small changes in the HPLC conditions which included wavelength (439 and 443 nm), percentage of acetonitrile in the mobile phase (58 and 62%) and flow rate (1.1 and 1.3 ml/min). Robustness of the method was studied using six replicates at a concentration level of 20 μg/ml of RFX. Analysis of marketed formulations The content of 25 tablets (each containing 100 mg of RFX) was mixed and quantity equivalent to 25 mg of drug weighed accurately and dissolved in mobile phase in a 25 ml volumetric flask, sonicated and filtered. The filtrate was diluted as per the requirement and 20 µl solution of each of marketed formulations (RCIFAX and TORFIX) was injected in to the HPLC system for conducting the assay. Results and Discussion A reversed-phase liquid chromatographic technique was developed to quantitate Rifaximin in pharmaceutical dosage forms. No stability indicating liquid chromatographic method was reported earlier. A detailed comparative study of the previously published methods with the present method was discussed in Table 1. Satisfactory resolution was achieved with use of a mixture of TBAHS and acetonitrile (40:60, v/v) (Figure 2) and C18 column was adopted for the analysis as it has provided a better separation of the analytes. UV detection was carried out at 441 nm (PDA detector). Table 1. Comparison of the performance characteristics of the present HPLC method with the published methods Method /Reagent (HPLC) Methanol: phosphate buffer (70:30, v/v) (HPLC) Acetonitrile: Ammonium Acetate (85:15, v/v) (HPLC) Acetonitrile: water: acetic acid (18:82:0.1, v/v/v) (HPLC) Sodium acetate: Acetonitrile (ph 4.0) (35:65, v/v) λ nm Linearity, g/ml 293 5-30 236 5-50 - 441 1.0-300 Comments Very narrow linearity range (UV/visible detector) Very narrow linearity range (UV/visible detector) Ref. [6] [7] 0.10 20 rat serum and urine [8] Wide linearity range Stability indicating method (PDA detector) [9]
Chem Sci Trans., 2014, 3(2), 566-575 570 (LC-ESI/MS/MS) Acetic acid: Acetonitrile (gradient mode) (LC MS) Ammonium acetate: methanol (ph 4.32) (LC MS) Ammonium formate: acetonitrile (20:80, v/v) - (0.5 10) 10-3 rat serum [10] - (0.5-10) 10-3 Human Plasma [11] - (0.2-200) 10-4 Human Plasma [12] (LC-ESI-MS) - (0.1 10) 10-3 dried blood spots [13] (Spectrophotometry) 637 5-25 Very narrow linearity FeCl 3 + MBTH [14] 296 5-25 range Alkaline borate buffer (Spectrophotometry) Water Methanol (HPLC) TBAHS: Acetonitrile (40:60, v/v) 437 474 1-200 2-100 441 0.1-200 Colorimetric methods Wide linearity range Stability indicating method (PDA detector) [15] Present work HPLC method development and optimization Initially the stressed samples were analyzed using a mobile phase consisting of TBAHS: acetonitrile (45:55, v/v) at a flow rate of 1.0 ml min -1. Under these conditions, the resolution and peak symmetry were not satisfactory and two peaks were observed, so the mobile phase was changed to TBAHS (ph 3.37): acetonitrile (40:60, v/v) with a flow rate of 1.2 ml min -1 under which peaks were well resolved with good symmetry and sharpness. Therefore, mobile phase containing TBAHS (ph 3.37): acetonitrile (40:60, v/v) was chosen for the best chromatographic response for the entire study. Method validation The typical chromatogram for RFX obtained from the extracted marketed formulation was shown in Figure 2. The calibration curve for RFX was linear over the concentration range of 0.1 200 μg/ml (Table 2). The data for the peak area of the drug in corresponds to the concentration was treated by linear regression analysis and the regression equation for the calibration curve (Figure 3) was found to be y = 17604x - 4629.7 with correlation coefficient of 0.9999 which is nearly equals to unity. mau 441nm,4nm (1.00) 2 2 1 1 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 min Figure 2. Representative chromatograms of Rifaximin (10 μg/ml) 5.706
571 Chem Sci Trans., 2014, 3(2), 566-575 Table 2. Linearity of Rifaximin Conc. μg/ml * Mean peak area ± SD % RSD 0.1 1634 ±7.205 0.441 0.5 8192 ±26.378 0.322 1 16823 ±106.657 0.634 5 84664 ±416.546 0.492 10 169783 ±599.333 0.353 20 349845 ±1913.652 0.547 50 856082 ±4126.315 0.482 100 1770119 ±10160.483 0.574 150 2608725 ±19095.867 0.732 200 3533933 ±23748.029 0.672 * Mean of three replicates Peak area Conc. mg/ml Figure 3. Calibration curve of Rifaximin The precision of the method was determined by repeatability (intra-day precision) and intermediate precision (inter-day precision) of the RFX standard solutions. Repeatability was calculated by assaying three samples of each at three different concentration levels (10, 20 and 50 µg/ml) on the same day. The inter-day precision was calculated by assaying three samples of each at three different concentration levels (10, 20 and 50 µg/ml) on three different days. The % RSD range was obtained as 0.2-0.4 and 0.42-0.83 for intra-day and inter-day precision studies respectively (Table 3). Table 3. Precision and accuracy study of Rifaximin Conc. µg/ml Intra-day precision Inter-day precision Mean peak area ± SD (%RSD) Mean peak area ±SD (%RSD) 10 169017.00±669.06 (0.4) 168866±974.334 (0.57) 20 349191.33±688.28 (0.2) 327740±1378.17 (0.42) 50 854368.67±2868.32 (0.34) 847364±7060.75 (0.83) Accuracy Conc. µg/ml * Mean peak area ± SD (% RSD) Drug found µg/ml * Recovery % 18 307472.7±2062.288 (0.66) 17.72 98.49 20 343376±1598.613 (0.45) 19.76 98.83 22 377945.7±2065.988 (0.54) 21.73 98.78 * Mean of three replicates
Chem Sci Trans., 2014, 3(2), 566-575 572 The method accuracy was proven by the recovery test. A known amount of RFX standard (10 μg/ml) was added to aliquots of samples solutions and then diluted to yield total concentrations as 18, 20 and 22 μg/ml as described in Table 3. The assay was repeated over three consecutive days. The resultant %RSD was in the range 0.45-0.66 (<2.0%) with a recovery 98.49-98.83%. The % RSD value of assay determined for the same sample under original conditions and robustness conditions was less than 2.0% (1.09-1.38) indicating that the developed method was robust (Table 4). Table 4. Robustness study of Rifaximin Parameter Condition * Mean peak Statistical Retention area analysis time 1.1 356828 Mean = 352407.33 5.706 Flow rate 1.2 349845 SD = 3844.56 5.693 ml/min 1.3 350549 % RSD = 1.09 5.684 Detection 439 344281 Mean = 345433 5.692 wavelength nm 441 443 349845 342173 SD = 3963.61 % RSD = 1.15 5.693 5.695 TBAHS: 38:62 344243 Mean = 349307.33 5.702 Acetonitrile 40:60 349845 SD = 48118.05 5.693 (v/v) 42:58 353834 % RSD = 1.38 5.684 * Mean of three replicates The system suitability test was performed to ensure that the complete testing system was suitable for the intended application. The parameters measured were peak area, retention time, tailing factor, capacity factor and theoretical plates. In all measurements the peak area varied less than 2.0%, the average retention time was 5.69 minutes. The capacity factor was more than 2, theoretical plates were more than 2000 and tailing factor was less than 2 for the RFX peak. The details were shown in Table 4. The peak purity index was found to be 1.0000. The LOQ was found to be 794 μg/ml and the LOD was found to be 241 μg/ml. Analysis of commercial formulations (Tablets) The proposed method was applied for the determination of RFX in tablets (RCIFAX and TORFIX) and the results show 98.48-99.19% recovery (Table 5) indicates that the method is selective for the assay of RFX without interference from the excipients used in these tablets. Table 5. Analysis of Rifaximin commercial formulation (Tablets) S No. Formulation Labeled claim mg * Amount found mg * Recovery % 1 RCIFAX 200 196.96 98.48 2 TORFIX 200 198.38 99.19 * Mean of three replicates Forced degradation studies/selectivity/specificity The specificity of the developed method was determined by injecting sample solutions (10 μg/ml) which were prepared by forcibly degrading under such stress conditions as heat, light, oxidative agent, acid and base under the proposed chromatographic conditions. The stability
573 Chem Sci Trans., 2014, 3(2), 566-575 indicating capability of the method was established from the separation of RFX peak from the degraded samples. The degradation of RFX was found to be very similar for both the tablets and standard. Typical chromatograms obtained following the assay of stressed samples are shown in Figure 4A-4E. mau 441nm4nm (1.00) [A] 5.692 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 min 2 mau 441nm,4nm (1.00) 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 [B] 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 min mau 441nm4nm (1.00) [C] 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 min 2 mau 441nm,4nm (1.00) [D] 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 min 5.680 5.704 5.696
Chem Sci Trans., 2014, 3(2), 566-575 574 mau 2 441nm,4nm (1.00) 2 [E] 5.693 1 1 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 min Figure 4. Representative chromatograms of Rifaximin (10 μg/ml) [A] Acidic [B] Alkaline [C] Oxidative [D] Thermal and [E] Photolytic degradation RFX standard and tablet powder was found to be quite stable under dry heat conditions. A slight decomposition was seen on exposure of RFX drug solution to alkaline (2.21%), thermal (3.19%) and photolytic (0.51%) conditions. During the acidic degradation, 37.94% of the drug was decomposed. The benzimidazole group present in the RFX chemical structure may be responsible for the acidic degradation. As the imidazole moiety has basic character probably it may be responsible for major degradation of Rifaximin in acidic environment. The drug has even undergone oxidative degradation (16.21%) without any major degradant. Therefore it can be concluded that the drug is more sensitive towards oxidation and acidic conditions and the details of degradation were shown in Table 6. The system suitability parameters for the RFX peak shows that the theoretical plates were more than 2000 and the tailing factor. Table 6. Forced degradation studies of Rifaximin * Mean * Drug * Drug Theoretical Tailing Stress Conditions peak area recovered % decomposed % plates factor Standard Drug 169783 100-9481.309 1.154 Acidic degradation 105364 62.06 37.94 9484.383 1.168 Alkaline degradation 166028 97.79 2.21 9336.099 1.162 Oxidative degradation 142274 83.79 16.21 9429.806 1.153 Thermal degradation 164362 96.81 3.19 9401.145 1.158 Photolytic degradation 168913 99.49 0.51 9434.722 1.154 * Mean of three replicates The % RSD of the assay of RFX from the solution stability and mobile phase stability experiments was within 2%. The results of the solution and mobile phase stability experiments confirm that the sample solutions and mobile phase used during the assays were stable up to 48 h at room temperature and up to 3 months at 4 ºC. Conclusion The proposed stability-indicating HPLC method was validated as per ICH guidelines and can be applied for the determination of Rifaximin in pharmaceutical dosage forms. The complete separation of the analytes was accomplished in less than 10 min and the method can be successfully applied for kinetic studies.
575 Chem Sci Trans., 2014, 3(2), 566-575 Acknowledgement We are grateful to M/s GITAM University, Visakhapatnam, India for providing research facilities and Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, India for providing the gift samples of Rifaximin. References 1. Ơ Neil M J, The Merck Index, Merck Research Laboratories, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, 14 th Ed., 2006. 2. DuPont H, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2007, 45(Suppl 1), S78 S84. 3. Gillis J C and Brogden R N, Drugs, 1995, 49, 467-484. 4. Bass N M, Mullen K D, Sanyal A, Poordad F, Neff G, Leevy C B, Samuel S, Muhammad Y S, Kimberly B, Todd F, Lewis T, Donald H, Shirley H, Kunal M, Audrey S, Enoch B and William P F, The New England Journal of Medicine, 2010, 362(12), 1071-1081; DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa0907893 5. Huang D B and Dupont H L, J Infection, 2005, 50(2), 97-106; DOI:10.1016/j.jinf.2004.019 6. Sudha T, Hemalatha P V, Ravikumar V R, Jothi R and Radhakrishnan M, Asian J Pharm Clin Res., 2009, 2(4), 112-116. 7. Bikshal Babu K, Reshma Syed, Kalpana P and Sandhya B, Int J Res Reviews Pharm Appl Sci., 2011, 1(4), 323-333. 8. Rao R N, Shinde D D and Agawane S B, Biomed Chromatogr., 2009, 23(6), 563-567; DOI:10.1002/bmc.1149 9. Mathrusri Annapurna M, Sai Pavan Kumar B, Venkatesh B and Raj Prakash J, Drug Invention Today, 2012, 4(8), 430-434. 10. Nageswara Rao R, Mastan Vali R and Dhananjay D S, Biomed Chromatogr., 2009, 23(11), 1145-1150; DOI:10.1002/bmc.1236 11. Zhang X, Duan J, Ke Li, Zhou L and Zhai S, J Chromatogr B, 2007, 850, 348-355. 12. Challa B R, Kotaiah M R, Chandu B R, Chandrasekhar K B, Kanchanamala K, Parveen S K R and Micheal F, East Central African J Pharm Sci., 2010, 13, 78-84. 13. Nageswara Rao R, Mastan Vali R, Ramachandra B and Pawan K M, Biomed Chromatogr, 2011, 25(11), 1201-1207; DOI:10.1002/bmc.1591 14. Sudha T, Anandakumar K, Hemalatha P V, Ravikumar V R and Radhakrishnan, Int J Pharm Pharm Sci., 2010, 2(1), 43-46. 15. Nanda B, Amrutansu P and Mathrusri Annapurna M, Int J Pharm Tech., 2010, 2(4), 1098-1104. 16. Corti P, Savini L, Celesti L, Cerameli G and Monotecchi L, Pharmaceutica Acta Helvetica, 1992, 67(3), 76-79. 17. Maixi Liuchao, Wan Wangchaoa and Chunpeng, Die Pharmazie, 2012, 67(4), 283-287. 18. ICH Validation of analytical procedures: Text and methodology Q2 (R1), International Conference on Harmonization, 2005. 19. ICH Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products Q1A (R2), International Conference on Harmonization, 2003.